site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25382 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anybody Here? ...

Nobody? ...

Well, alright then:

A large study from all of Sweden has found that increasing people's incomes randomly (actually, increasing their wealth, but you can convert wealth to income via an interest rate very easily) does not reduce their criminality. The authors find that via a cross sectional model, people with higher incomes are less likely to commit crimes (this just compares rich people to poors and sees rich people are less criminal), while when they switch to a "shock" model where people who won what is effectively a lottery don't see reduced criminality in either themselves or their children. This is a pretty big blow for the "poor people are more criminal because they don't have money for their basic needs" theory.

Original study here: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31962/w31962.pdf

Marginal Revolution post discussing this here (also reproduced below, post has an additional graph at the end on the link): https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/12/why-do-wealthier-people-commit-less-crime.html

It’s well known that people with lower incomes commit more crime. Call this the cross-sectional result. But why? One set of explanations suggests that it’s precisely the lack of financial resources that causes crime. Crudely put, maybe poorer people commit crime to get money. Or, poorer people face greater strains–anger, frustration, resentment–which leads them to lash out or poorer people live in communities that are less integrated and well-policed or poorer people have access to worse medical care or education and so forth and that leads to more crime. These theories all imply that giving people money will reduce their crime rate.

A different set of theories suggests that the negative correlation between income and crime (more income, less crime) is not causal but is caused by a third variable correlated with both income and crime. For example, higher IQ or greater conscientiousness could increase income while also reducing crime. These theories imply that giving people money will not reduce their crime rate.

The two theories can be distinguished by an experiment that randomly allocates money. In a remarkable paper, Cesarini, Lindqvist, Ostling and Schroder report on the results of just such an experiment in Sweden.

Cesarini et al. look at Swedes who win the lottery and they compare their subsequent crime rates to similar non-winners. The basic result is that, if anything, there is a slight increase in crime from winning the lottery but more importantly the authors can statistically reject that the bulk of the cross-sectional result is causal. In other words, since randomly increasing a person’s income does not reduce their crime rate, the first set of theories are falsified.

A couple of notes. First, you might object that lottery players are not a random sample. A substantial part of Cesarini et al.’s lottery data, however, comes from prize linked savings accounts, savings accounts that pay big prizes in return for lower interest payments. Prize linked savings accounts are common in Sweden and about 50% of Swedes have a PLS account. Thus, lottery players in Sweden look quite representative of the population. Second, Cesarini et al. have data on some 280 thousand lottery winners and they have the universe of criminal convictions; that is any conviction of an individual aged 15 or higher from 1975-2017. Wow! Third, a few people might object that the correlation we observe is between convictions and income and perhaps convictions don’t reflect actual crime. I don’t think that is plausible for a variety of reasons but the authors also find no statistically significant evidence that wealth reduces the probability one is suspect in a crime investigation (god bless the Swedes for extreme data collection). Fourth, the analysis was preregistered and corrections are made for multiple hypothesis testing. I do worry somewhat that the lottery winnings, most of which are on the order of 20k or less are not large enough and I wish the authors had said more about their size relative to cross sectional differences. Overall, however, this looks to be a very credible paper.

In their most important result, shown below, Cesarini et al. convert lottery wins to equivalent permanent income shocks (using a 2% interest rate over 20 years) to causally estimate the effect of permanent income shocks on crime (solid squares below) and they compare with the cross-sectional results for lottery players in their sample (circle) or similar people in Sweden (triangle). The cross-sectional results are all negative and different from zero. The causal lottery results are mostly positive, but none reject zero. In other words, randomly increasing people’s income does not reduce their crime rate. Thus, the negative correlation between income and crime must be due to a third variable. As the authors summarize rather modestly:

Although our results should not be casually extrapolated to other countries or segments of the population, Sweden is not distinguished by particularly low crime rates relative to comparable countries, and the crime rate in our sample of lottery players is only slightly lower than in the Swedish population at large. Additionally, there is a strong, negative cross-sectional relationship between crime and income, both in our sample of Swedish lottery players and in our representative sample. Our results therefore challenge the view that the relationship between crime and economic status reflects a causal effect of financial resources on adult offending.

A large study from all of Sweden has found that increasing people's incomes randomly (actually, increasing their wealth, but you can convert wealth to income via an interest rate very easily) does not reduce their criminality. The authors find that via a cross sectional model, people with higher incomes are less likely to commit crimes (this just compares rich people to poors and sees rich people are less criminal), while when they switch to a "shock" model where people who won what is effectively a lottery don't see reduced criminality in either themselves or their children. This is a pretty big blow for the "poor people are more criminal because they don't have money for their basic needs" theory.

New but not surprising. People involved in retail theft prevention have known this forever. There is no reliable profile for a potential shoplifter. It can be anyone.

Surely you are not suggesting that it’s not possible to reason probabilistically about who is more or less likely to shoplift? I don’t think anyone believes that it is possible to definitively rule anybody out, but I would be shocked if it’s not possible to draw useful and reliable conclusions about whom to devote more resources to focusing on.

Surely you are not suggesting that it’s not possible to reason probabilistically about who is more or less likely to shoplift?

Demographically no, behaviorally on the other hand...

I half suspect that the prog preoccupation with idpol and demographics stems from an underdeveloped sense of social awareness. IE that in lacking the normal predator/danger sense and background theory-of-mind they find themselves defaulting to coarser easier to read signals.

I half suspect that the prog preoccupation with idpol and demographics stems from an underdeveloped sense of social awareness.

Related: we have deliberately and accidentally managed to make almost every way to read social class in strangers more difficult and unreliable. Imagine this scene from My Fair Lady, or its equivalent lines in the inferior Pygmalion original, today. The entire concepts behind the play almost don't make sense in today's world.

The modern upper class, such as it is, uses constant negro and lower class slang. The pattern of speech can be distinguished over time, but not cleanly and easily. It will take a minute or more of conversation, in a lot of cases, to reliably place someone as rich or poor, and hours to place them in a decile unreliably. Accents are muddled, or affected for gravitas. Where the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers specifically took classes to eliminate their accents, the modern upper class affects accents to seem plebeian.

Where fashion conscious they dress in fashions drawn largely from hip-hop, which in turn derive from street gangs and prison culture; where slovenly they dress in ways so pointlessly indistinct as to be unreadable. Unless one is very adept at reading branding, one cannot at a glance tell who is rich and who is poor. Where in Victorian England the clothing items chosen, the cleanliness and state of repair, the quality and thickness of the fabric, the cut, would all tell you instantly someone's social class. White collar and blue collar mean nothing with the abolition of dress codes in offices and the tendency for office workers to dress like Lumberjacks for fashion purposes. Tattoos are basically as common on young ivy leaguers as they are on bikers these days.

As a result, where in olden days one could rely on reading individuals by class, many now fall back on race, because skin color is one of the few things that can't be altered.

this scene from My Fair Lady, or its equivalent lines in the inferior Pygmalion original

Sir, this insult to the great work of Bernard Shaw unsullied by the "musicalification" needed to make it palatable to the common mind shall not go unchallenged. I demand satisfaction!

(Though you have to admit, Hepburn was resplendent in the film, but she was resplendent in all of them, so that doesn't get it any points)

God forbid anyone jazz up a dry-as-dust social farce with several of the best songs in the entire Western musical tradition. No, we can only deliver messages by having everyone stand quietly in a drawing room and exchange their views. Shavian "humor" indeed.

Seriously, Pygmalion is a fine work, but the musical is superior. The songs have at least three absolute bangers, the kind of stuff that gets played without reference to the musical and has become part of the American Songbook tradition: Wouldn't it be Loverly, The Street Where You Live, and Get Me To The Church On Time ((Which I also force everyone to listen to before planning any Bachelor/ette party: if your party doesn't meet this basic theme it is a complete failure, a Groom Shower for mincing pussies not a proper Stag)). Then the next tier of plot specific songs all make for great reaction youtube links, Why Can't the English, A Little Bit of Luck, Just You Wait, You Did It. The music is fantastic, a classic in its own right.

Then, the plot changes. The Frasier-Crane-Ass naysayers have always argued that the musical's happy ending is a betrayal, ruins the oh-so-serious dark complexity of Shaw. Codswalllop. Shaw's original was, dare I say it?, too woke. It's a feminist fantasy, where once educated Eliza must become self-actualized, free from her prior restraints, independent and determined to live her own life. Women universally prefer the musical. Because that is the way that a woman would really act if she were carved from marble by a man she'd be under his spell and never really escape. Rex Harrison is the sexiest man in the universe to most women watching the play, why would Eliza leave! The play has a too optimistic bluepill view of female and human nature, the musical corrects it.

The play isn’t “blue pill” or woke, it’s just telling a different story with completely different motivations for the protagonist.

The film genericizes the plot into the generic Pretty Woman romcom where the charming and suave man saves the humble and overlooked girl from a miserable life and elevates her. It’s the classic ‘I can fix her’ narrative which appeals - as all the best romantic comedies do - to both sexes. It’s not even necessarily gendered, since it’s a fantasy for both sexes to get a “great deal” on the dating/marriage/sex marketplace by taking someone of lower status and elevating them above what they could get in their own class / status / looks range to start with. See jokes about dating a fat girl and taking her to the gym etc.

The original story is darker and involves actual satire, the rest of the cast are much more fleshed out, and the ending retains a glorious ambiguity. My Fair Lady is merely the default romcom with some limited aesthetic influence from Pygmalion, if even that. In addition, Higgins has a lot of Shaw in him, and Shaw seems to have had a strange disinterest in sex that would make elevating a pretty peasant girl to society for himself to fuck incongruent with the narrative as presented.

Part of the humor of the story is that he really is doing it as a bet, not to sleep with Eliza.

where the charming and suave man saves the humble and overlooked girl from a miserable life and elevates her.

I don’t know that the film portrays Higgins as suave or charming; maybe as a straight guy I’m just not picking up on what women would see in him, but to me Higgins comes off as a turbo-autistic and self-absorbed Confirmed Old Bachelor. The song “A Hymn To Him” implies that he’s at best an ardent misogynist (and not in the “believes in restrictions on female sexuality” feminist sense, but rather the purer “can’t stand to be around women, prefers the exclusive company of men” sense), at worst a self-closeted homosexual narcissist who is only capable of interacting respectfully with people who share his precise personality. However, I do agree that the ending of the film lets him off the hook.

That being said, maybe @FiveHourMarathon’s redpilled reading of the film is correct and that in real life Eliza would return to Higgins, whether because his domineering attitude and aloofness toward her are genuinely attractive, or because a woman from her background would recognize the obvious practical/financial downsides to a long-term relationship with Freddy and would decide instead on the pragmatic hard-headed choice to hitch her wagon to Higgins, as flawed and difficult as he may be.

Probably the best synthesis is simply to accept that straight plays and musicals have inherently different purposes. While there are examples of musicals with unambiguously tragic/unhappy endings, generally speaking (and this is especially true of Golden Age musicals like My Fair Lady) audiences are just never going to accept a bleak and emotionally-unsatisfying ending to a musical. Plays can get away with that because the genre conventions are far less hard-coded. My tastes lean toward preferring the bleak and unsparing ending - I’ve joked in the past that I never want to see another movie with a happy ending ever again - but I accept the realities of what it took to get the film made.

(Such as casting a lead actress who couldn’t sing and dubbing virtually every line of her singing in the film, and then not crediting the splendid Marni Nixon for her overdubbing. I love Audrey Hepburn as much as any straight man with eyes does, but the part should have gone to Julie Andrews, and thank god someone took a chance on her soon after and her full career was launched by The Sound Of Music.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats